<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>NEW DELHI 4TH PUBLIC TALK 18TH FEBRUARY 1959</TITLE>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="k.css"></HEAD><BODY>
<TABLE align=center border=0 width=450><TR><TD align=center height=80><br>
<FONT size=5 color=black><B>NEW DELHI 4TH PUBLIC TALK 18TH FEBRUARY 1959</B></FONT><br><br><br><DIV class='PP2'>This evening I would like to suggest that we talk over the question of change and revolution; but before we go into it, I think it is very important to understand the relationship.  of the individual to society.  The first thing to realize is that the problems of the individual, his sorrows and struggles, are also those of the world.  The world is the individual; the individual is not different from the society in which he lives.  That is why, without a radical transformation of the individual, society becomes a burden, an irresponsible continuity in which the individual is merely a cog.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is a strong tendency to think that the individual is of little importance in modern society, and that everything possible must be done to control the individual, to shape his thought through propaganda, through sanctions, through the various means of mass communication.  The individual himself wonders what he can do in a society which is so burdensome, which bears down on him with the weight of a mountain, and he feels almost helpless.  Confronted with this mass of confusion, deterioration, war, starvation and misery, the individual not unnaturally puts to himself the question, "What can I do?".  And I think the answer to this question is that he cannot do anything, which is an obvious fact.  He can't prevent a war, he can't do away with starvation, he can't put a stop to religious bigotry, or to the historical process of nationalism, with all its conflicts.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So I think to put such a question is inherently wrong.  The individual's responsibility is not to society, but to himself.  And if he is responsible to himself, he will act upon society - but not the other way round.  Obviously the individual can't do anything about this social confusion; but when he begins to clear up his own confusion, his self-contradiction, his own violence and fears, then such an individual has an extraordinary importance in society.  I think very few of us realize this.  Seeing that we cannot do anything on a world scale, we invariably do nothing at all, which is really an escape from the action within oneself which will bring about a radical change.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So I am talking to you as one individual to another.  We are not communicating with each other as Indians, or Americans, or Russians, or Chinese, nor as members of any particular group.  We are talking things over as two human beings, not as a layman and a specialist. If that much is clear between us, we can proceed.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The individual is obviously of the greatest significance in society, because it is only the individual who is capable of creative activity, not the mass - and I shall explain presently what I mean by that word `creative'.  If you see this fact, then you will also realize that what you are in yourself is of the highest importance. Your capacity to think, to function with wholeness, with an integration in which there is no self-contra- diction - this has an enormous significance.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
We see that if there is to be any real change in the world - ,and there must be a real change - , then you and I as individuals will have to transform ourselves.  Unless there is a radical change in each one of us, life becomes an endless imitation, ultimately leading to boredom, frustration and hopelessness.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now, what do we mean by change?  Surely, change under compulsion is no change at all.  If I change because society forces me to change, it is merely an adjustment according to convenience, a conformity brought about by pressure, by fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Most of us change only under compulsion, through fear, through some form of reward or punishment.  Psychologically, this is the actual fact.  And when we are forced to change, it is merely an outward conformity, while inwardly we remain the same.  I may change because my family or the society in which I live influences me to do so, or because the government requires that I act in a certain way; but this is only an adjustment, it is not change, and inwardly I am still greedy, envious, ambitious, frustrated, sorrowful, fearful.  I have outwardly conformed to a new pattern; I have not changed radically within myself.  And is it possible for me as a human being to be in a state of continuous change, revolution, which is not the result of any compulsion or promise of reward?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Surely, anything I do because of compulsion, fear, imitation, or reward, is within the field of time, and it breeds habit.  I do the thing over and over again until habit is established, and this habit is within the field of time.  So there can be no real change, no revolution, within the field of time; there can only be adjustment, conformity, imitation, habit.  Change requires a total perception or awareness of all that is implied in imitation, conformity, and this total perception frees the mind to change radically.  I am just introducing it to you, so that you and I can think it out together.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
As I said, any form of change through compulsion is no change at all.  which I think is fairly obvious.  If you force your child to do something, he will do it through fear, but there is no understanding, no comprehension of what is involved.  When action is born of fear, outwardly it may appear to be a change, but actually it is not.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now let us find out if it is possible to understand and free the mind from fear, so that there is a change without effort.  All effort to change implies an inducement, does it not?  When I make an effort to change, it is in order to gain, to avoid, or to become something; therefore there is no radical change at all.  I think this fact must be very clearly understood by each one of us if there is to be a fundamental change.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
If we are well off and have a good job, if we are fairly well-to-do, most of us are contented and do not with anything changed; we just want to carry on as we are.  We have fallen into a certain habit, a certain comfortable groove, and we want to continue in that state of endless limitation.  But the wave of life does not function in that way, it is always beating upon and breaking down the walls of security which we have built around ourselves.  Our desire to be secure right through, psychologically as well as physically, is constantly being challenged by the movement of life, which like a restless sea is always pounding on the shore.  And nothing can withstand that pounding; however much one may cling to inward security, life will not allow it to exist for long.  So there is a contradiction between the movement of life and our desire to be secure; and out of this comes fear in all its various forms. If we can understand fear, perhaps in the very process of that understanding there will be the cessation of fear, and therefore a fundamental change without effort.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
What is fear?  I do not know if you have ever thought about it. We are going to examine it now; but if you merely follow verbally what is said and are not aware of your own fear, then you will not understand and will not be free of fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
After all, these meetings are intended, not merely to stimulate you, but to help to bring about a change in the quality of the mind. That is where there must be a revolution: in the quality of the mind itself.  And that revolution can take place only if you are aware of your own fear, and are capable of looking at it directly.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fear is a sorrowful, a dreadful thing, and it is always following most of us like a shadow.  One may not be aware of it, but deep down it is there: the fear of death, the fear of failure, the fear of losing a job, the fear of what the neighbours will say, the fear of one's wife or husband, and so on.  There are fears of which one is conscious, and fears of which one is unaware.  I am not talking about a particular form of fear, but of the whole sense of fear; because unless the mind is free from all sense of fear, which is not to cover it up, thought cannot function with clarity, with perception; there is always apprehension, confusion.  So it is absolutely essential for the individual to be free from fear in all its forms.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now, how does fear arise?  Is there fear when you are actually confronted with the fact?  Please follow this closely.  Is there fear when you are face to face with the fact of death, let us say? Surely, when you are directly confronted with the fact, there is no fear, because in that moment the challenge demands your action and you respond, you act.  Fear arises only before or after the event.  I am afraid of death in the future.  I am afraid of what may happen if I become ill - I may lose my job.  Or I am afraid at the thought of what has already happened, or what nearly happened.  So my fear is always linked to the past or to the future, it is always within the brackets of time, is it not?  Fear is the result of my thinking about the past, and of my thinking about the future.  If you observe very carefully you will see that there is no fear of the present.  That is because, when there is full awareness of the present, neither the past nor the future exists.  I do not know if I am making myself clear on this point.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Knowing that I shall die in the future, I am afraid of death, of what is going to be.  I have seen death in the past, and that has awakened in me fear of what is going to happen in the future.  So my mind is never fully aware of the present - which does not mean that I must live thoughtlessly in the present.  I am talking about an awareness of the present which is not contaminated by past fear or future fear, and which is therefore limitless.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
This is very difficult to understand unless you experience for yourself what I am talking about - or rather, unless you observe the actual arising of fear.  Fear comes into being only when thought is caught in the past as memory, or in the future as anticipation.  So time is the factor of fear, and until the mind is free of time there can be, no radical wiping away of fear.  It sounds complicated, but it is not.  We are used to resisting fear, to disciplining ourselves against it.  We say that we must not think about the past or the future, that we must live only in the present; therefore we build a wall of resistance against the past and the future, and try to make the best of the present, which is a very shallow way of living.  If that is clear, let us look again at the whole process of fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Being afraid, how am I to resolve fear?  I may resist fear, I may escape from it; but resistance and escape do not wipe away fear.  How then am I to approach fear, how am I to understand and resolve it without effort?  The moment I make an effort to be free of fear, I am exercising will, which is a form of resistance; and resistance does not bring understanding.  So this habit of effort must go - that is the first thing I have to realize.  My mind is caught in the habit of condemning, resisting fear, which prevents the understanding of fear. If I want to understand fear, there must be no resistance, no defence mechanism in operation with regard to that particular feeling which I call fear.  And then what happens?  What happens when the mind is free from the habit of resisting or running away from fear through reading books, listening to the radio, and through the various other forms of escape with which we are all familiar?  Then, surely, the mind is capable of looking directly at that feeling which it calls fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now, can the mind look at anything without naming it?  Can I look at a flower, at the moonlight on the water, at an insect, at a feeling, without verbalizing it, without giving it a name?  Because verbalizing, giving a name to what is perceived, is a distraction from perceiving, is it not?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Please, sirs, I hope you are actually doing this, experimenting to find out whether you can look at your fear without naming it.  Can you look at a flower without giving it a name, without saying "It is lovely", "It is yellow", I like that flower", "I don't like that flower" - without all the chattering of the mind that comes into operation when you look at something?  Try it and you will find that it is one of the most difficult things to do.  This chattering of the mind, this verbalization in terms of condemnation or admiration, is a habit that prevents direct perception.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So you are now aware of your fear; you know you are afraid.  Can you look at it without condemnation or acceptance?  Are you looking at it through the focus of the word `fear', or are you aware of that feeling without the word?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sirs, let us take another example.  Most of us are idolatrous - which means that the symbol becomes extraordinarily significant.  We worship not only the idol made by the hand, but also the ideal created by thought.  Now, an idolatrous mind is not a free mind.  An idolatrous mind can never think clearly, perceptively.  The man who has an ideal is obviously not very thoughtful.  I know it is the fashion to have ideals, it is the respectable escape from the actual fact, and that is why ideals become all-important.  But however much you may pursue the ideal of non-violence, for example, the actual fact is that you are violent.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So the idealistic mind is idolatrous; being violent, it worships the ideal of non-violence, and thereby lives in a state of self-contradiction.  The ideal of non-violence is merely the mind's reaction against its own violence; and if it is to be free of both, the mind must be aware of the fact of its violence, but not in relation to the opposite, which it calls non-violence.  Then one can look at violence, observe it with one's whole being, which is not to condemn it, or say that it is inevitable in life.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now, are you aware of your fear in that way?  Are you aware of the feeling without the word?  That is, can you look at the feeling without verbalizing it - which is really to give your whole attention to the feeling, is it not?  There is then no distraction, no verbal screen between you and what is being observed.  That is true perception, surely: when the mind is not chattering but sees the fact entirely, without the word coming in between.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
This observation of fear without verbalization is in itself discipline; it is not a discipline imposed upon the mind.  I hope this is clear, because it is very important to understand it.  The observation of fear is in itself discipline, You don't have to exercise discipline in order to observe.  The exercising of discipline in order to observe, prevents observation; it blocks perception.  But when you see the falseness of disciplining the mind to observe, that very perception brings its own discipline.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
If you want to understand something, if you want to understand fear, you must obviously give your whole attention to it.  Do not say: "How am I to give my whole attention without discipline?" That is a wrong question which will receive a wrong answer.  First see the truth that to understand your fear, you must give it your whole attention, and that there can be no attention as long as you run away from fear, or condemn it.  This condemnation and escape is a habit which you have fallen into, and habit cannot be wiped away by any discipline.  The disciplining of the mind to wipe away habit merely creates another habit.  But in observing fear without verbalization, without condemnation or justification, there is a spontaneous discipline from out moment to moment - which means that the mind is free from the habit of discipline.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I wonder how many of you are following all this?  Perhaps you are too tired at the end of the day to follow it consciously; but if you just listen without a conscious effort to listen, I think you will find that listening is in itself an astonishing thing.  If you listen rightly, a miracle takes place.  The man who knows how to listen without effort, learns much more than the man who makes an effort to listen.  When one listens easily, effortlessly, the mind can see what is true and what is false; it can see the truth in the false.  So listen to what is being said, even though you may not be able to follow it consciously, through direct experience.  After all, the deep, fundamental responses of human beings are anonymous.  It is not that I am telling you something, which you then understand, but when the mind is in a state of listening there is an understanding which is neither yours nor mine; and it is this effortless understanding that brings about a fundamental revolution.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
To go back, fear exists only within the brackets of time, where there is no real change but merely reaction.  Communism, for example, is a reaction from capitalism, just as bravery is a reaction from fear.  Where there is freedom, which is the absence of fear, there is a state which cannot be called bravery.  It is a state of intelligence.  That intelligence can meet problems without fear, and therefore understand them.  When a mind that is afraid is confronted with a problem, whatever action it takes, only further confuses the problem.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So, freeing the mind is the action of intelligence.  There is no definition of intelligence, and if you merely pursue a definition you will not be intelligent.  But if you begin step by step to find out precisely what you are afraid of and why, then you are bound to discover that there is a division between the observer and the observed.  Please follow this a little bit, sirs, I am only putting it differently.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is the observer who says "I am afraid", and who is separate from the feeling which he calls fear.  If, for example, I am afraid of what the neighbours might say, there is the feeling of fear, and the `me' who is the experiencer, the observer of that feeling.  As long as there is this division between the observer and the observed, between the `me' who is afraid and the feeling of being afraid, there can be no ending of fear.  The ending of fear comes about only when you begin to analyze and examine very carefully the whole process of fear, and discover for yourself that the observer is not different from the observed.  There is fear because the observer in himself is afraid, so it is not a matter of being free from the fear of a particular thing.  Freedom from the fear of something is a reaction, and is therefore not freedom.  When I am free from anger, that freedom is merely a reaction from anger, and therefore it is not freedom.  When I am free from violence, that freedom is again only a reaction from violence.  There is a freedom which is not freedom from something, and which is the highest form of intelligence; but that freedom can come into being only when one goes very deeply into this whole question of fear.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now, let us look at another problem, which is this: why do we have ideals?  Is it not a waste of time?  Do not ideals prevent the perception of what actually is?  I know most of you have ideals: the ideal of nobility, the ideal of chastity, the ideal of non-violence, and many more.  Why?  Do they really help you to get rid of what is? I am avaricious, acquisitive, envious, let us say, and I have the ideal of renunciation.  Now, why should I have that ideal at all?  We say the ideal is necessary because it will act as a lever, as a means of getting rid of avariciousness.  But is that so?  Surely, the mind can be free of greed, or whatever it is, only when it applies itself to the problem, and not when it is distracted by an ideal.  That is why I say the ideal is utter nonsense.  Being violent, the mind pursues the ideal of non-violence, which is a vast mechanism of escape from the actual fact of violence.  It is a self-deception.  It has no validity at all.  What has validity is violence and one's capacity to examine it.  To pursue the ideal of non-violence, all the time struggling within oneself not to be violent, is another form of violence.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
So what matters is not the ideal, but the fact and your capacity to face the fact.  You cannot face the fact of your anger, your violence, as long as you have an ideal, because the ideal is fictitious, fallacious, it has no reality.  To understand your violence, you must give your whole attention to it, and you cannot give your whole attention to it if you have an ideal.  Idealism is merely one of the habits that we have, and India is drowning in this habit.  "He is a noble man, he has ideals and conforms to them" - you know all the nonsense we talk.  The simple fact is that we are violent; and it is only when we look at our violence without justification or condemnation that we can go into it.  The moment one's mind ceases to justify or condemn violence, it is already free to examine the structure of violence.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fear expresses itself in different forms.  There is not only fear as despair, but also fear as hope, and most of us are caught in the chasm between the two.  Being in despair, we run to hope; but if we begin to understand the whole process of fear, then there is neither hope nor despair.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sirs, I do not know if you have ever tried pursuing virtue to its limit and examining it without acceptance or rejection.  Try it sometime, try pursuing and looking at virtue without justifying or condemning it, and you will find that you come to a point in the understanding of virtue which is not merely social convenience or conformity to an idealistic pattern.  You will come to a point when the mind is free from the whole idea of virtue, and therefore faces a state of nothingness. Again, sirs, please listen before you agree or disagree; just listen, and let the words sink into your unconscious.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The mind is at present cluttered with ideas, is it not?  The mind is the result of experience; the mind is fearful, it knows hope and despair, greed and the ideal of non-greed.  Being the result of time, the mind can function only within the field of time; and without that field there is no change.  Change there is merely imitation or reaction, and therefore it is not a revolution.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Now, if the mind can push more and more deeply into itself, you will find that it comes to a point when there is complete nothingness, a total void, which is not the void of despair.  Hope and despair are both the outcome of fear; and when you have deeply pursued fear and gone beyond it, you will come to this state of nothingness, a sense of complete void which is not related to despair.  It is only in this state that there is a revolution, a radical transformation in the quality of the mind itself.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
But this state of nothingness is not an ideal to be pursued.  It has nothing to do with the inventions of the mind.  The mind cannot comprehend it, for it is much too vast.  But what the mind can do is to free itself from all its chattering, from all its pettiness, from all its stupidities, its envy, greed, fear.  When the mind is silent there is the life, coming into being of this sense of complete nothingness which is the very essence of humility.  It is only then that there is a radical transformation in the quality of the mind, and it is only such a mind that is creative.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
February 18, 1959. </DIV></TD></TR></TABLE></BODY></HTML>
